I am tired of the use of that childish phrase to describe anyone being targeted by the military or law enforcement. It's infantilizing, naive and may even contribute to an imperialistic foreign policy.
Absolutely. The possibility that Obama might have been trying to hold off for an October surprise is horrifying. If the WikiLeaks revelation made that impossible, good on Wikileaks.
If I'm going to forego the ability to play the games that are available for the iPad - and a lot of indie game designers are designing only for the iPad - I'll get and root a Nook Color for $249.
I don't dispute that the iPad has more entertainment features than an Android tablet. But there are certain work functions that are important to me in a tablet: the ability to read any e-Book format, display PDFs (esp. academic papers) and graphics well, and let me annotate them. I think pretty much all the major players can do these things, so it isn't a differentiator - but this means for me (and for a lot of people who are in the market for tablets) it may be work+"play" (iPad) vs just-work. If I were ordering a few hundred tablets for a workforce, I might be more likely to consider the Android tablets, then, if there was a significant savings involved - but I'd still get myself the iPad.
It means I'm waiting for my wife to give me "permission" to buy a $599 gadget, more or less. Or, actually, to pick up a used iPad on Craigslist when one in good shape comes around.
In our household, purchases like that are discussed, negotiated, put into context with other needs, etc.
People I know who have an iPad use it extensively - they don't miss the lack of flash. They aren't technically illiterate, either. They are doing four major things with their iPad - playing iPad specific games (eg http://mashable.com/2011/03/23/sword-sworcery-game/); using it as a reading platform (Kindle app, comics readers, Google books, PDF reading with annotation); using it as a netflix/hulu platform (no hulu plus for android yet) and using it for Google maps/earth. They do these things fantastically well.
There is a lot I don't like about Apple, and in the Apple/Google war, I prefer Google - but if Steve Jobs continues his project of putting Flash out of our misery, I'll give him a big, wet, sloppy kiss.
I actually don't think this is true. I have an android phone, no interest in ever having an iPhone, yet am in the market for an iPad - and I'm not the only one l know like me.
I think you underestimate the diversity argument - a lot of people want to cover their bases, in terms of platforms.
Funny thing is, I would have made the opposite prediction a couple years ago - I would have bet on Android for tablets and the iPhone to continue to dominate smartphones - but I understand now why it went the way it did. I don't think that Android tablets can compare to the iPad experience, mostly due to the apps.
I like Android on the phone and my CR-48, but the iPad is far more interesting to me than an Android tablet is. Part of it is pure diversity - there are some amazing apps and games that only run on iOs; I only need one device to play them/enjoy them, and an iPad is a lot more compelling a game interface than the iPod touch/iPhone is. I expect most productivity apps to either get ported to Android from iOs or at least have a good working equivalent, but games and creative/playful apps, which are distinct and not really replaceable by equivalents, favor iPad. So, it's iPad for reading and games, the Android phone as a PIM (remember that word?) and workhorse smart-phone.
A lot of "fandroids" are actually really Google "fans", or at least tied to the Google eco-system (that fits me, sort of, with the usual caveats and worrying about any corporate entity controlling too much personal information, etc.) - and one can stay within the Google system in your iPad. One thing that distinguishes Google from Apple is that the latter really is about the one "right" and "best" way to do something, while the former is about having several ways (many still in beta) of skinning many cats (some of which haven't even been discovered yet.)
I think that, if you want to succeed at life in general, introverts must learn how to cope with extroverted activities, and vice versa. Remember, after lunch, the extroverts may have to buckle down and do some work by themselves in a quiet space. Even salespeople need to do their expenses, organize their workload, etc.
The realities of life require us all to spend time outside of our 'comfort zones.' It can be rewarding and even, if you let it be, enjoyable to do so. Tiring, yes - but like I mentioned downthread, the difference between extroverts and introverts is about their energy states, not about enjoyment.
While people's political opinions may be shallow, I assure you - there's plenty to them that isn't. They may have traveled. They may have watched someone die. They may have been in prison. They may have written a children's book. They may breed geckos.
Perhaps your concern is, ultimately, that your own experiences are limited... and any conversation beyond mass media and jokes will reveal it.
The difference between introverts and extroverts, as you suggest, isn't that one dislikes other people and the other does; extroverts get energized by other people and lose energy when alone, and introverts are the other way around. (God save us from extroverts who don't like other people, but they do exist.) I'm an introvert who has come to genuinely like other people - but I get "peopled out" after a bit and need to recharge.
Meetings are structured differently, and have agendas. They often don't end until the agenda is worked out, and people resent issues that aren't on the agenda being introduced to the meeting and extending them.
Lunches are unstructured and end at a given point. Also, you're eating, and you are free to pay more or less attention to a discussion as you see fit. You're also able to discuss any issue you want. That improvisation is important. It also humanizes you somewhat. And it is a recognition that our work life is still part of our life: that our relationships with coworkers, even if they aren't truly "personal" relationships, are still human relationships, in the way that our relationships with our neighbors and community members are.
People who eat lunch together are somewhat more reluctant to lay each other off. In Japan, this idea is very strong (nomikai.)
And if you smile and nod, people will often understand and accept it. We *are* quiet. And a lot of people - may of whom aren't quiet - will actually like us for it. Just like, once you learn how, you can appreciate the company of people who are less quiet than we are.
There are introverted ways to enjoy a group lunch. Eating, listening, and perhaps occasionally participating in a discussion when it's relevant. A group lunch isn't a cocktail party, and just being at the table reminds people you are part of the team and keeps you informed on what other people are doing, having trouble with, etc. The information that gets revealed there can give you opportunities to be more helpful and needed in the team - which will contribute both to your own success and that of the group.
I am in introvert who has learned the importance of lunch, among other things. Introversion doesn't need to become solipsism or self-absorption.
Except that's not what's happening. More like the police are trying to crack down on bank robbers in general by pulling over people in blue Tauruses, after they learn that a couple bank robbers elsewhere had them.
If you can defend Iraq, after all these years - you're beyond reason.
As you are if you think Obama is "left" of anything except far right. But citing Saul Alinsky tells me that you're getting your talking points from talk radio pundits, and not doing anything other than partisan water-carrying. (As if there was more against Saddam than against Qaddafi! What a joke.)
Spend a few weeks reading antiwar.com and Lew Rockwell, then we'll talk.
This criticism is sound only if it comes either from the far left - for whom Obama was, barely, the lesser of two evils - or the anti-war right (American Conservative magazine, Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul - sort of - etc), who were fighting the Bush administration every step of the way. Obama is guilty for having failed to disassemble Gitmo and for carrying on the obsession with "global security" (we used to be interested in *defense.* Now we're interested in "security." See a problem here?)
But when that charge comes from someone who more or less supported the Bush administration or is in the Republican mainstream (or the more bellicose corners of the Tea Party) then its worse than hypocrisy. It's like shitting in your room and complaining that your brother isn't cleaning it fast enough.
Gamers aren't really human beings. They are kind of a primate with plant-like features, strongly conditioned, and haven't developed critical abilities or the capacity for historical perspective. While we can't expect anything like moral or social reasoning from them, we can respect their amazing skills and amusing antics, and seek to preserve their numbers as their habitat is threatened by human progress.
The statement may be true, but the utterance of it, depending on context, can still be racist.
If I'm in a workplace with one black man, and someone has taken my lunch from the refrigerator, and I stare at my black coworker and say "black people commit more crimes than" anyone else there, the statement may be true, but it is also very, very racist.
The "research" shows a barely significant correlation that might have a little to do with temperament and affect, not a "genetic inclination." The chain of influences and context-dependent elements that go from "genes" to thing like ideology and complex social behavior is immense. The recent trend to call anything for which some gene, somewhere might provide a small contributory element "hard-wired" or genetically determined or such is misguided at best.
In this case, I would identify the journalists with the greatest visibility and analyze the forum posts in response to it. There are a lot of ways you could define "fan", but I'll stick to those who respond with hostility to perceived criticism of the brand to which they have become loyal. (This means that I'm not including people who, for example, mostly document features and write tips on websites - we're speaking about "rabid fans," not necessarily "helpful fans" or hobbyists or such.)
Then, I'd go through the threads and count posts which fit certain criteria - apologetics, insults, etc.
It wouldn't be "proof without a doubt", but it would be solid evidence. The methodology could be extended for as long as you wanted by including more journalists - it's pretty finite.
It would probably take a while, but it would be a do-able research project. I'll predict that you'll find a higher number of Apple fans than Android fans. The reason? I think Android is like Microsoft Windows - not in quality, but in that it simply doesn't trigger the same kind of enthusiasm as Apple. Apple has an allure as a brand that is unrivaled - Android has a certain kind of appeal to FOSS types, but it doesn't really have allure. Google "fans" follow Google's leads in not necessarily loving everything Google does, and the Google brand is less about products and more about a (partially mythical) cult of engineering. They're different in kind.
It's completely true that Android's UI is a blatant attempt at copying iOS. It's also true that the Android fanbois are every bit as irrational and rabid as any other kind,
Prove it.
This is a false-equivalency claim that seldom gets backed up. Apple fandom has reached a fervor that I haven't seen (outside of game console fandom) since the Amiga days, and I don't think that other platforms/vendors have anything near it, either it numbers or kind.
I'm closer to a regular gamer - I didn't get a PS3 for OtherOS - but it is in my rational self-interest to see fewer, rather than more, restrictions on the things I buy. The problem with your formulation is that it reduces people to one single element of their personal interest. Insofar as we are all citizens with a desire to be reasonable free, the "regular gamers" who support Sony taking legal action against people tinkering with their own hardware are actually not being rational: they are thinking in the very short term, and impulsively.
This is one of the problems I have with the more naive conceptions of behavioral economics: it thinks it can understand human subjects just by looking at their immediate, local positions.
Well, they wanted to create a game about a global superpower sending in military troops to enforce their way of living against the wishes of the local populace, but they couldn't think of any cases of that happening in the real world, so they had to make one up.
Slashdot Mirror
I am tired of the use of that childish phrase to describe anyone being targeted by the military or law enforcement. It's infantilizing, naive and may even contribute to an imperialistic foreign policy.
Absolutely. The possibility that Obama might have been trying to hold off for an October surprise is horrifying. If the WikiLeaks revelation made that impossible, good on Wikileaks.
If I'm going to forego the ability to play the games that are available for the iPad - and a lot of indie game designers are designing only for the iPad - I'll get and root a Nook Color for $249.
I don't dispute that the iPad has more entertainment features than an Android tablet. But there are certain work functions that are important to me in a tablet: the ability to read any e-Book format, display PDFs (esp. academic papers) and graphics well, and let me annotate them. I think pretty much all the major players can do these things, so it isn't a differentiator - but this means for me (and for a lot of people who are in the market for tablets) it may be work+"play" (iPad) vs just-work. If I were ordering a few hundred tablets for a workforce, I might be more likely to consider the Android tablets, then, if there was a significant savings involved - but I'd still get myself the iPad.
It means I'm waiting for my wife to give me "permission" to buy a $599 gadget, more or less. Or, actually, to pick up a used iPad on Craigslist when one in good shape comes around.
In our household, purchases like that are discussed, negotiated, put into context with other needs, etc.
People I know who have an iPad use it extensively - they don't miss the lack of flash. They aren't technically illiterate, either. They are doing four major things with their iPad - playing iPad specific games (eg http://mashable.com/2011/03/23/sword-sworcery-game/); using it as a reading platform (Kindle app, comics readers, Google books, PDF reading with annotation); using it as a netflix/hulu platform (no hulu plus for android yet) and using it for Google maps/earth. They do these things fantastically well.
There is a lot I don't like about Apple, and in the Apple/Google war, I prefer Google - but if Steve Jobs continues his project of putting Flash out of our misery, I'll give him a big, wet, sloppy kiss.
I actually don't think this is true. I have an android phone, no interest in ever having an iPhone, yet am in the market for an iPad - and I'm not the only one l know like me.
I think you underestimate the diversity argument - a lot of people want to cover their bases, in terms of platforms.
Funny thing is, I would have made the opposite prediction a couple years ago - I would have bet on Android for tablets and the iPhone to continue to dominate smartphones - but I understand now why it went the way it did. I don't think that Android tablets can compare to the iPad experience, mostly due to the apps.
I like Android on the phone and my CR-48, but the iPad is far more interesting to me than an Android tablet is. Part of it is pure diversity - there are some amazing apps and games that only run on iOs; I only need one device to play them/enjoy them, and an iPad is a lot more compelling a game interface than the iPod touch/iPhone is. I expect most productivity apps to either get ported to Android from iOs or at least have a good working equivalent, but games and creative/playful apps, which are distinct and not really replaceable by equivalents, favor iPad. So, it's iPad for reading and games, the Android phone as a PIM (remember that word?) and workhorse smart-phone.
A lot of "fandroids" are actually really Google "fans", or at least tied to the Google eco-system (that fits me, sort of, with the usual caveats and worrying about any corporate entity controlling too much personal information, etc.) - and one can stay within the Google system in your iPad. One thing that distinguishes Google from Apple is that the latter really is about the one "right" and "best" way to do something, while the former is about having several ways (many still in beta) of skinning many cats (some of which haven't even been discovered yet.)
I think that, if you want to succeed at life in general, introverts must learn how to cope with extroverted activities, and vice versa. Remember, after lunch, the extroverts may have to buckle down and do some work by themselves in a quiet space. Even salespeople need to do their expenses, organize their workload, etc.
The realities of life require us all to spend time outside of our 'comfort zones.' It can be rewarding and even, if you let it be, enjoyable to do so. Tiring, yes - but like I mentioned downthread, the difference between extroverts and introverts is about their energy states, not about enjoyment.
While people's political opinions may be shallow, I assure you - there's plenty to them that isn't. They may have traveled. They may have watched someone die. They may have been in prison. They may have written a children's book. They may breed geckos.
Perhaps your concern is, ultimately, that your own experiences are limited... and any conversation beyond mass media and jokes will reveal it.
Good advice as well.
The difference between introverts and extroverts, as you suggest, isn't that one dislikes other people and the other does; extroverts get energized by other people and lose energy when alone, and introverts are the other way around. (God save us from extroverts who don't like other people, but they do exist.) I'm an introvert who has come to genuinely like other people - but I get "peopled out" after a bit and need to recharge.
Meetings are structured differently, and have agendas. They often don't end until the agenda is worked out, and people resent issues that aren't on the agenda being introduced to the meeting and extending them.
Lunches are unstructured and end at a given point. Also, you're eating, and you are free to pay more or less attention to a discussion as you see fit. You're also able to discuss any issue you want. That improvisation is important. It also humanizes you somewhat. And it is a recognition that our work life is still part of our life: that our relationships with coworkers, even if they aren't truly "personal" relationships, are still human relationships, in the way that our relationships with our neighbors and community members are.
People who eat lunch together are somewhat more reluctant to lay each other off. In Japan, this idea is very strong (nomikai.)
And if you smile and nod, people will often understand and accept it. We *are* quiet. And a lot of people - may of whom aren't quiet - will actually like us for it. Just like, once you learn how, you can appreciate the company of people who are less quiet than we are.
There are introverted ways to enjoy a group lunch. Eating, listening, and perhaps occasionally participating in a discussion when it's relevant. A group lunch isn't a cocktail party, and just being at the table reminds people you are part of the team and keeps you informed on what other people are doing, having trouble with, etc. The information that gets revealed there can give you opportunities to be more helpful and needed in the team - which will contribute both to your own success and that of the group.
I am in introvert who has learned the importance of lunch, among other things. Introversion doesn't need to become solipsism or self-absorption.
Except that's not what's happening. More like the police are trying to crack down on bank robbers in general by pulling over people in blue Tauruses, after they learn that a couple bank robbers elsewhere had them.
If you can defend Iraq, after all these years - you're beyond reason.
As you are if you think Obama is "left" of anything except far right. But citing Saul Alinsky tells me that you're getting your talking points from talk radio pundits, and not doing anything other than partisan water-carrying. (As if there was more against Saddam than against Qaddafi! What a joke.)
Spend a few weeks reading antiwar.com and Lew Rockwell, then we'll talk.
This criticism is sound only if it comes either from the far left - for whom Obama was, barely, the lesser of two evils - or the anti-war right (American Conservative magazine, Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul - sort of - etc), who were fighting the Bush administration every step of the way. Obama is guilty for having failed to disassemble Gitmo and for carrying on the obsession with "global security" (we used to be interested in *defense.* Now we're interested in "security." See a problem here?)
But when that charge comes from someone who more or less supported the Bush administration or is in the Republican mainstream (or the more bellicose corners of the Tea Party) then its worse than hypocrisy. It's like shitting in your room and complaining that your brother isn't cleaning it fast enough.
Gamers aren't really human beings. They are kind of a primate with plant-like features, strongly conditioned, and haven't developed critical abilities or the capacity for historical perspective. While we can't expect anything like moral or social reasoning from them, we can respect their amazing skills and amusing antics, and seek to preserve their numbers as their habitat is threatened by human progress.
The statement may be true, but the utterance of it, depending on context, can still be racist.
If I'm in a workplace with one black man, and someone has taken my lunch from the refrigerator, and I stare at my black coworker and say "black people commit more crimes than" anyone else there, the statement may be true, but it is also very, very racist.
The "research" shows a barely significant correlation that might have a little to do with temperament and affect, not a "genetic inclination." The chain of influences and context-dependent elements that go from "genes" to thing like ideology and complex social behavior is immense. The recent trend to call anything for which some gene, somewhere might provide a small contributory element "hard-wired" or genetically determined or such is misguided at best.
In this case, I would identify the journalists with the greatest visibility and analyze the forum posts in response to it. There are a lot of ways you could define "fan", but I'll stick to those who respond with hostility to perceived criticism of the brand to which they have become loyal. (This means that I'm not including people who, for example, mostly document features and write tips on websites - we're speaking about "rabid fans," not necessarily "helpful fans" or hobbyists or such.)
Then, I'd go through the threads and count posts which fit certain criteria - apologetics, insults, etc.
It wouldn't be "proof without a doubt", but it would be solid evidence. The methodology could be extended for as long as you wanted by including more journalists - it's pretty finite.
It would probably take a while, but it would be a do-able research project. I'll predict that you'll find a higher number of Apple fans than Android fans. The reason? I think Android is like Microsoft Windows - not in quality, but in that it simply doesn't trigger the same kind of enthusiasm as Apple. Apple has an allure as a brand that is unrivaled - Android has a certain kind of appeal to FOSS types, but it doesn't really have allure. Google "fans" follow Google's leads in not necessarily loving everything Google does, and the Google brand is less about products and more about a (partially mythical) cult of engineering. They're different in kind.
It's completely true that Android's UI is a blatant attempt at copying iOS. It's also true that the Android fanbois are every bit as irrational and rabid as any other kind,
Prove it.
This is a false-equivalency claim that seldom gets backed up. Apple fandom has reached a fervor that I haven't seen (outside of game console fandom) since the Amiga days, and I don't think that other platforms/vendors have anything near it, either it numbers or kind.
I'm closer to a regular gamer - I didn't get a PS3 for OtherOS - but it is in my rational self-interest to see fewer, rather than more, restrictions on the things I buy. The problem with your formulation is that it reduces people to one single element of their personal interest. Insofar as we are all citizens with a desire to be reasonable free, the "regular gamers" who support Sony taking legal action against people tinkering with their own hardware are actually not being rational: they are thinking in the very short term, and impulsively.
This is one of the problems I have with the more naive conceptions of behavioral economics: it thinks it can understand human subjects just by looking at their immediate, local positions.
While I don't think Doyle is bad or lacks value, I would just say that "single most successful" anything doesn't justify making it an object of study.
The "single most successful" restaurant is McDonald's, but you learn nothing about it in any culinary school. (Not saying Doyle=McD's)
Well, they wanted to create a game about a global superpower sending in military troops to enforce their way of living against the wishes of the local populace, but they couldn't think of any cases of that happening in the real world, so they had to make one up.